HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-10-SMPC-min 4'7"°
'"°"I''
x
TOWN OF LEXINGTON
Ad hoc School Master Planning Committee (AhSMPC)
APPo'L I4'
Minutes
Date June 10, 2014
Place and time- Public Services Building 1.00 P.M.
Members Present Patrick Goddard, Director of Public Facilities (absent from3 10 to 4 00) Peter
Kelley, Board of Selectmen, Carl Oldenburg, Permanent Building Committee Jon Himmel, Permanent
Building Committee Judy Crocker, School Committee Mary Ann Stewart, School Committee
Members Absent Paul Ash, Superintendent of Schools
Liaisons Present None
Liaisons Absent Bill Hurley, Capital Expenditures Committee Mollie Garberg, Appropnation
Committee Alan Levine, Appropnation Committee
Recording Secretary Mark Barrett
The meeting was called to order at 1.00 P.M.by Ms Stewart,who had agreed to serve as chair
1 Committee Interviews of Architectural Firm finalists for Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 14-48
2. Ms Stewart welcomed the first firm being interviewed, OMR Architects of West Acton, MA OMR was
represented by Leigh Sherwood, Jeanne Roberts, and David Hams
OMR made a presentation to the committee identifying themselves as a holistic firm focusing on
history, community, education and growth. Some of their recent similar work highlighted efficiency,
sustainability and safety& security OMR identified one of their team members as a resident of
Lexington and agreed to the proposed 10 week schedule assuming timely committee involvement and
availability and receipt of enrollment projections by early July OMR discussed similar work and also
discussed the process for evaluating occupancies and planning for maximum efficiency Committee
members asked questions of OMR, including the absence of the educational programmer on the team
OMR acknowledge this and called it an unavoidable scheduling issue but offered to set up a meeting
with the programmer at the committee's convenience
3 Ms Stewart welcomed the second firm being interviewed, SMMA Associates, of Cambridge, MA,
represented by Daniel Ruiz and Phil Porcelli SMMA introduced their firm as a multidisciplinary firm
offering architecture as well as engineering and planning services Daniel and Phil are from a division in
this firm that works exclusively in the k-12 sector and Phil serves as the Educational programmer for
this project. SMMA outlined some of their numerous past clients and work,but noted that no two
master plans are alike SMMA reviewed their work plan and the interaction needed with school
administrators and staff and acknowledged the Town's schedule SMMA also discussed some
additional factors that will need to be considered in this work which are other programs which rely on
school facilities such as Lextended day, LABBB,pre-k programs and others SMMA also discussed
course selection offerings as being an issue that can have impact on capacity analysis and needs to be
considered in their work. The Committee made inquiries at the conclusion of the presentation, one of
which led to a discussion of conducting visionary sessions with staff as a successful tool,which could
perhaps be conducted in subsequent phases of the work.
4 Ms Stewart welcomed Design Partnership of Cambridge (DPC) from Charlestown, MA, represented by
David Finney and Robert Bell,both of whom are identified as educational programmers, although Mr
Bell is certified as such. David identified DPC as a firm with over 100 educational projects to its credit,
which include 2 recent educational project/master plans here in Lexington. Working together Dave and
Bob would split up the programming work to enhance their work effort with David working on the k-8
grades and Bob working on the 9-12 grades DPC discussed the current educational plan and the future
teaching &planning objectives as being key elements that affect capacity, and included suggestions of
use of modular classrooms, redistricting or using the "old-Harrington" as some of the tools for
consideration of solutions DPC also identified flexibility and utilization as being key needs at the high
school. At the conclusion of the DPC presentation the committee members were afforded the
opportunity to ask questions One of these questions led to a discussion on the methodology or process
used to calculate space capacity DPC stated that the MSBA's current model for making these
calculations generalizes some of the data unfairly and they are not in favor of its use Opting for an
older method that they feel is more accurate and reliable
5. At the conclusion of all three interviews Mr Goddard explained to the committee that they needed to
rank the three firms in order 1-3, in order to comply with the designer selection guidelines General
discussion followed on the presentations made by each firm. It was discussed that certainly all three
firms possessed the overall ability and experience to complete the work. The challenge would be to
select the firm that might best respond to the specific needs of this particular scope of work at this time
All Committee members ranked SMMA first based upon numerous factors including knowledge and
expenence, a genuine passion for the work, and many of the discussion points outlined in their
presentation with regard to the scope of work and SM MA's approach and understanding OMR was
ranked second citing their previous work and committee appreciation for the graphics used to convey
the information,however not having the educational planner available as part of the presentation gave
pause to the extent of availability this person may or may not have during the work. Ranked third was
DPC,understanding their extensive expenence, including work here in Lexington,their message of how
well they would respond to the scope of work was not as clear or refined.
6. There was a motion made and seconded to rank the firms 1 SMMA, 2 OMR, 3 DPC The motion
passed 6-0
7 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 4 30 P.M. The motion passed. VOTE 6-0
These minutes were approved on June 23, 2014
Materials distributed/used at the meeting.
Public Meeting Agenda, June 10, 2014,Ad hoc School Master Planning Committee